Philip Morris involvement in the development of an air quality laboratory in El Salvador

BackgroundThe tobacco industry has organised research institutions to generate misleading data on indoor air quality, including second-hand smoke exposure and health effects.ObjectivesTo describe tobacco industry involvement in the organisation and financial support of an air quality research laboratory in El Salvador.MethodsTobacco industry documents on the internet were systematically searched from August 2007 to February 2008 for air quality studies undertaken in El Salvador, and laboratory personnel were interviewed.ResultsPhilip Morris sought to establish a network of air quality laboratories throughout Latin America. In El Salvador, in 1997, through Tabacalera de El Salvador (a subsidiary of Philip Morris) and the Salvadoran Foundation for Economic Development (FUSADES), the industry organised an air quality research laboratory. FUSADES was part of the industry's Latin American Scientific Network, which consisted of doctors hired as consultants who would send air samples from their research to FUSADES. Philip Morris Scientific Affairs personnel hired LabStat, a Canadian-based laboratory, to provide technical assistance to FUSADES (train and assist the laboratory in air quality measurements). In addition, the Washington-based HMS Group successfully implemented a plan to upgrade the laboratory and obtain international certifications. HMS Group also assisted in searching for sustainable funding for FUSADES, including seeking funds from international aid for Hurricane Mitch.ConclusionAir quality studies that have used the FUSADES laboratory should be carefully interpreted, given the support that this laboratory received from Philip Morris

Global access to affordable direct oral anticoagulants

Poor control of cardiovascular disease accounts for a substantial proportion of the disease burden in developing countries, but often essential anticoagulant medicines for preventing strokes and embolisms are not widely available. In 2019, direct oral anticoagulants were added to the World Health Organization's WHO Model list of essential medicines. The aims of this paper are to summarize the benefits of direct oral anticoagulants for patients with cardiovascular disease and to discuss ways of increasing their usage internationally. Although the cost of direct oral anticoagulants has provoked debate, the affordability of introducing these drugs into clinical practice could be increased by: price negotiation; pooled procurement; competitive tendering; the use of patent pools; and expanded use of generics. In 2017, only 14 of 137 countries that had adopted national essential medicines lists included a direct oral anticoagulant on their lists. This number could increase rapidly if problems with availability and affordability can be tackled. Once the types of patient likely to benefit from direct oral anticoagulants have been clearly defined in clinical practice guidelines, coverage can be more accurately determined and associated costs can be better managed. Government action is required to ensure that direct oral anticoagulants are covered by national budgets because the absence of reimbursement remains an impediment to achieving universal coverage. Tackling cardiovascular disease with the aid of direct oral anticoagulants is an essential component of efforts to achieve the World Health Organization's target of reducing premature deaths due to noncommunicable disease by 25% by 2025

The Tobacco Industry’s Role in the 16 Cities Study of Secondhand Tobacco Smoke: Do the Data Support the Stated Conclusions?

BACKGROUND: Since 1996, the tobacco industry has used the 16 Cities Study conclusions that workplace secondhand tobacco smoke (SHS) exposures are lower than home exposures to argue that workplace and other smoking restrictions are unnecessary. OBJECTIVES: Our goal was to determine the origins and objectives of the 16 Cities Study through analysis of internal tobacco industry documents and regulatory agency and court records, and to evaluate the validity of the study’s conclusions. RESULTS: The tobacco industry’s purpose in conducting the 16 Cities Study was to develop data showing that workplace SHS exposures were negligible, using these data to stop smoking restrictions by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The extensive involvement of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and the tobacco industry’s Center for Indoor Air Research in controlling the study was not fully disclosed. The study’s definition of “smoking workplace” included workplaces where smoking was restricted to designated areas or where no smoking was observed. This definition substantially reduced the study’s reported average SHS concentrations in “smoking workplaces” because SHS levels in unrestricted smoking workplaces are much greater than in workplaces with designated smoking areas or where no smoking occurred. Stratifying the data by home smoking status and comparing exposures by workplace smoking status, however, indicates that smoke-free workplaces would halve the total SHS exposure of those living with smokers and virtually eliminate SHS exposure for most others. CONCLUSIONS: Data in the 16 Cities Study reveal that smoke-free workplaces would dramatically reduce total SHS exposure, providing significant worker and public health benefits

Disclosure of funding sources and conflicts of interest in evidence underpinning vitamin D and calcium recommendations in bone health guidelines

Objective: The present study aims to examine the relationship between study funding sources, author conflicts of interest (COI) and conclusions in studies supporting vitamin D and Ca intake cited in bone health guideline recommendations. Design: Cross-sectional Setting: Forty-seven global bone health guidelines with vitamin D and/or Ca recommendations for adults aged 40 years and above. Participants: The evidence cited to support the recommendations was extracted by two independent reviewers and classified by type of recommendation, article characteristics, study design, types of funding sources and conflict of interest (COI) disclosure and direction of study conclusions. Results: Of 156 articles cited to support the bone health recommendations, 120 (77 %) disclosed a funding source, and 43 (28 %) declared that at least one author had a COI. Compared with articles with non-commercial or no funding source, those funded by commercial sponsors tended to have a study conclusion favourable towards vitamin D/Ca (relative risk (95 % CI): 1·32 (0·94, 1·87), P = 0·16), but the association was not statistically significant (Fisher's exact test). Compared to those with a COI disclosure statement, articles with missing or unclear COI disclosure were more likely to have favourable conclusions (1·56 (1·05, 2·31), P = 0·017) (Fisher's exact test). Conclusion: In the evidence underpinning a sample of global bone health guidelines, COI disclosure was low and studies with missing or unclear COI disclosures were more likely to have favourable study conclusions than those with disclosures, suggesting a need for greater transparency of COI in bone health guidelines

Public opinions about overdiagnosis:A national community survey

Despite evidence about the "modern epidemic" of overdiagnosis, and expanding disease definitions that medicalize more people, data are lacking on public views about these issues. Our objective was to measure public perceptions about overdiagnosis and views about financial ties of panels setting disease definitions.We conducted a 15 minute Computer Assisted Telephone Interview with a randomly selected community sample of 500 Australians in January 2014. We iteratively developed and piloted a questionnaire, with a convenience sample (n=20), then with participants recruited by a research company (n=20). Questions included whether respondents had been informed about overdiagnosis; opinions on informing people; and views about financial ties among panels writing disease definitions.Our sample was generally representative, but included a higher proportion of females and seniors, typical of similar surveys. American Association for Public Opinion Research response rate was 20% and cooperation rate was 44%. Only 10% (95% CI 8%-13%) of people reported ever being told about overdiagnosis by a doctor. 18% (95% CI 11%-28%) of men who reported having prostate cancer screening, and 10% (95% CI 6%-15%) of women who reported having mammography said they were told about overdiagnosis. 93% (95% CI 90%-95%) agreed along with screening benefits, people should be informed about overdiagnosis. On panels setting disease definitions, 78% (95% CI 74%-82%) felt ties to pharmaceutical companies inappropriate, and 91% (95% CI 82%-100%) believed panels should have a minority or no members with ties. Limitations included questionnaire novelty and complexity.A small minority of Australians surveyed, including those reporting being screened for prostate or breast cancer, reported being informed of overdiagnosis; most believed people should be informed; and a majority felt it inappropriate that doctors with ties to pharmaceutical companies write disease definitions. Results suggest strategies to better inform people about overdiagnosis, and review disease definition processes, have significant public sympathy

Investigation of Risk Of Bias due to Unreported and SelecTively included results in meta-analyses of nutrition research: The ROBUST study protocol

Background: Dietary guidelines should be informed by systematic reviews (SRs) of the available scientific evidence. However, if the SRs that underpin dietary guidelines are flawed in their design, conduct or reporting, the recommendations contained therein may be misleading or harmful. To date there has been little empirical investigation of bias due to selective inclusion of results, and bias due to missing results, in SRs of food/diet-outcome relationships. Objectives: To explore in SRs with meta-analyses of the association between food/diet and health-related outcomes: (i) whether systematic reviewers selectively included study effect estimates in meta-analyses when multiple effect estimates were available; (ii) what impact selective inclusion of study effect estimates may have on meta-analytic effects, and; (iii) the risk of bias due to missing results (publication bias and selective non-reporting bias) in meta-analyses. Methods: We will systematically search for SRs with meta-analysis of the association between food/diet and health-related outcomes in a generally healthy population, published between January 2018 and June 2019. We will randomly sort titles and abstracts and screen them until we identify 50 eligible SRs. The first reported meta-analysis of a binary or continuous outcome in each SR (the 'index meta-analysis') will be evaluated. We will extract from study reports all study effect estimates that were eligible for inclusion in the index meta-analyses (e.g. from multiple instruments and time points) and will quantify and test for evidence of selective inclusion of results. We will also assess the risk of bias due to missing results in the index meta-analyses using a new tool (ROB-ME). Ethics and dissemination: Ethics approval is not required because information will only be extracted from published studies. Dissemination of the results will be through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at conferences. We will make all data collected from this study publicly available via the Open Science Framework

Mandatory Disclosure of Pharmaceutical Industry-Funded Events for Health Professionals

David Henry and colleagues examine compliance with new disclosure requirements of Medicines Australia, the pharmaceutical industry representative body, and argue that they fall short and instead more comprehensive reporting standards are needed